The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in employee rights cases and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - The appellants-defendants Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter 'the RSRTC') have preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 23-11-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan City in first appeal No. 12/2011 allowing appeal reversed the judgment dated 9-5-2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan City in civil suit No. 143/2008 and decreed the suit for declaration for allowing pay scale Rs. 5500-150-9000 of the post of Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and Rs. 6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion of service of 27 years and to pay arrears of differential amount with interest at the rate of 8%.

2. Facts as culled out from the record are that respondent-plaintiff-employee (hereafter 'the employee') filed a suit for declaration challenging the order No. 1272 dated 5-2-2003 and claiming that pursuant to order of State Government dated 25-1-1992 he was entitled for the pay scale Rs. 5500-150-9000 of the post of Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and Rs. 6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion of service of 27 years and to pay arrears of differential amount with interest at the rate of 18%.

2.1. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that he was initially appointed on the post of booking clerk vide order dated 12-7-1968 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector vide order No. 1835 dated 1-2-1977 in the pay scale of 370-10-410-15-530-20-590 and vide order No. 619 dated 30-9-2003 he was promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000. On 25-1-1992 the State Government issued circular dated 25-1-1992 granting selection pay scale to employees on completion of service of 9, 18 and 27 years. The circular of the Government was approved by the RSRTC vide resolution No. 34/92 dated 29-3-1992 and made applicable to employees of RSRTC vide order No. 2971 dated 27-4-1993.

2.2. In aforesaid circumstances the plaintiff moved an application before the RSRTC claiming pay scale Rs. 5500-150-9000 of the post of Traffic Inspector on completion of service of 18 years and Rs. 6500-200-10500 of the post of Depot Manager on completion of service of 27 years and to pay arrears of differential amount with interest at the rate of 18%. But the application of the plaintiff was rejected vide order No. 1272 dated 5-2-2003. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit challenging the impugned order dated 5-2-2003 and claiming due benefits of selection scale on completion of service of 18 years and 27 years.

3. On service of notice, defendants filed written statement and stated that on completion of 18 years of service the plaintiff was not entitled for the pay scale of the post of Traffic Inspector. It was stated that in compliance of order dated 27-4-1993, whereby the circular dated 25-1-1992 was made applicable, the plaintiff was granted pay scale according to his post of booking clerk, on which he was appointed. The plaintiff was not entitled for selection scale on completion of 27 years of service. It was further stated that vide order dated 8-2-2007 the plaintiff has been promoted to the post of Depot Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500. The prayer was made to dismiss the suit.

4. On basis of pleadings of parties, four issues were framed. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited 11 documents. Defendants examined as DW.1 Satya Narayan Sharma but no document was exhibited.

5. The trial court considering evidence of both parties decided issues No. 1 & 2 against the plaintiff and the issue No. 3 against defendants and consequently the plaintiff's suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 9-5-2011.

6. On filing first appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate court considered the case. Considering the fact that the plaintiff was awarded benefits of pay scale on completion of 18 years on 3-7-1994 and